On 4 Aug 2015, at 11:18, Tagir Valeev amae...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, Paul.
I think I have no access rights to do it.
You can do it here:
http://bugreport.java.com/
(Write access to the Java Bug System requires OpenJDK author status.)
Should I have to sign an OCA for this?
No.
I
Hi Chris
On 04.08.2015 13:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Alexander,
Wow, that's a lot of boiler plate for a manual test. Surely a
README.txt, or similar would be sufficient?
I noticed that with your changes, now this test has a dependency on
the jdk.desktop module ( imports from java.awt.* ). Is
On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:19, Stuart Marks stuart.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi all,
The sequential() and parallel() methods on a stream set the execution mode
for the entire pipeline. Unfortunately this isn't particularly clear from the
documentation. This has been a recurring question. Please
On 4 Aug 2015, at 01:09, Stuart Marks stuart.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Tagir,
Interesting issues.
Regarding Stream.concat, it may be that, today, changes to the
sequential/parallel execution mode aren't propagated to the streams being
concatenated.
The execution mode is propagated
Hi, Joe and all
Would you like to have a review for bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132660?
This is already on our plan for a while, but I have to finish it now because
these unit tests failed with latest Jigsaw build. However I made the changes
based on 9-dev repo, I tested
Hi Alexander,
I had a look at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132877/webrev.01/jdk.patch, and
there's nothing that caught my eye.
However - it would be good if you could generate a specdiff so that
we could verify that no mistake has crept in.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 03/08/15
Hi Alexander,
src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/File.java
1.
- * blockquotett
- * new File(/ttinbsp;f/itt.{@link #toURI()
toURI}()).equals(/ttinbsp;f/itt.{@link #getAbsoluteFile()
getAbsoluteFile}())
- * /tt/blockquote
+ * blockquote
+ * {@code new File(f.}{@link
+
Hello!
You can do it here:
http://bugreport.java.com/
(Write access to the Java Bug System requires OpenJDK author status.)
Thank you for the clarification. I filed the issue with Review ID:
JI-9023040.
It’s probably because people are busy. If you have it can you forward me
On 4 Aug 2015, at 13:42, Tagir Valeev amae...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
You can do it here:
http://bugreport.java.com/
(Write access to the Java Bug System requires OpenJDK author status.)
Thank you for the clarification. I filed the issue with Review ID: JI-9023040.
Thanks, and
FYI:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2015-August/004433.html
(Please reply on jigsaw-dev rather than on jdk9-dev or core-libs-dev.)
- Mark
On 4 Aug 2015, at 09:20, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4 Aug 2015, at 01:09, Stuart Marks stuart.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Tagir,
Interesting issues.
Regarding Stream.concat, it may be that, today, changes to the
sequential/parallel execution mode aren't propagated
Hi Tagir,
Can you log an issue?
Thanks,
Paul.
On 4 Aug 2015, at 06:47, Tagir Valeev amae...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
The PriorityQueue class iterator() returns elements in no particular order.
This is explicitly stated in JavaDoc for iterator() method [1] as well as
in class description
Hello, Paul.
I think I have no access rights to do it. Should I have to sign an OCA for
this? I submitted the signed OCA to oracle-ca...@oracle.com last week (as
you suggested in ConstantSpliterator discussion), but still got no
response. Probably I did something wrong.
With best regards,
Tagir
Alexander,
Wow, that's a lot of boiler plate for a manual test. Surely a
README.txt, or similar would be sufficient?
I noticed that with your changes, now this test has a dependency on the
jdk.desktop module ( imports from java.awt.* ). Is it really necessary
to have a dialog window pop-up?
Hello!
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Stuart Marks stuart.ma...@oracle.com
wrote:
I've gone ahead and added this to the implementation note section of
Stream.concat
+ * pSubsequent changes to the sequential/parallel execution mode of
the
+ * returned stream are not guaranteed to
I've gone ahead and added this to the implementation note section of
Stream.concat
+ * pSubsequent changes to the sequential/parallel execution mode of the
+ * returned stream are not guaranteed to be propagated to the input
streams.
+ *
and I've pushed the change.
The situation
Hello Daniel,
The review was re-uploaded as specdiff indeed discovered a couple of
unwanted changes (in 'InitialContext' and 'ReferralException'), so your
and Pavel's recommendations were very useful, thanks.
webrev (please update the web-page):
+1
Paul.
On 3 Aug 2015, at 05:19, joe darcy joe.da...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
With the fix for
JDK-8076112: Add @HotSpotIntrinsicCandidate annotation to indicate
methods for which Java Runtime has intrinsics
the sources for the libraries clearly indicate which methods might
Hi Frank,
That looks fine. However, instead of appending an additional directory
utests, you could make the paths shorter by removing javax/xml and
org/w3c or org/xml. The short names are good enough to represent the
API names, test/javax/xml/jaxp/unittest/parsers for example, is easily
Hi all,
Please review this API enhancement that adds streams support to
java.util.Scanner.
Scanner is essentially a regular expression matcher that matches over arbitrary
input (e.g., from a file) instead of a fixed string like Matcher. Scanner will
read and buffer additional input as
20 matches
Mail list logo
